We cannot afford to ignore any party in the new CA

DEC 09 -
With the vote count now complete, the CPN-UML has emerged as the second largest party in the second Constituent Assembly (CA), after the Nepali Congress (NC). Bhadra Sharma and Darshan Karki spoke to UML Central Committee member Pradip Gyanwali about the UML’s demand of replacing the President, its stance on government formation and the constitution-writing process.


How is the UML approaching government formation?
On the basis of the fresh mandate provided by the people and the changed power balance, we have proposed a new package for consensus. It includes issues related to power sharing, for instance, the position of the President and positions within the Constituent Assembly, like Chair of the Constitutional Committee. Overall, we want to develop a new model for cooperation among the large
parties in the CA, including the UCPN (Maoist) and the CPN-Maoist, even though the latter boycotted the entire election process. But as the Nepali Congress (NC) is the largest party, we have requested it to present its proposal first.


It seems there is already a major difference between the NC and UML regarding the President. How will this pave the way for consensus?
The UML did not start this discussion with a particular post or portfolio in mind. We are trying to raise two important issues. First, there is a new mandate now, which has changed the power balance of the political parties. Second, people have chosen the NC and UML to lead the constitution-writing process. The seats secured by these two parties will almost equal two-thirds in the CA. Though this is legally sufficient to write a constitution, we do not think that we should ignore other parties. All political parties should feel comfortable; their roles should be clearly seen in the constitution-writing process. So it is wrong to portray the UML as having undue interest in only securing power positions.


The NC has said that it does not want to discuss replacing the President. What will the UML’s position and proposal for power sharing be in this context?
First, I personally am surprised by the reactions of some Congress leaders. It looks as though they have not been able to comprehend the mandate given by the people. The recently held polls are not normal parliamentary elections where the party that secures maximum number of seats forms the government and the rest stay in the opposition. The Interim Constitution did not envision a second election to the CA. Therefore, there exist many ambiguities and contradictory provisions about the position of the President and the Vice-President (VP). People claim that the President and VP can only be changed after the constitution is written. However, the constitution clearly states that the CA will elect a President and VP on the basis of consensus among its members. This part cannot be ignored. Yet, our demand cannot be seen solely on the basis of constitutional provisions and articles as the Interim Constitution had not envisioned the current context. If all the parties discuss and reach consensus on not changing the President and VP until the constitution is written, we can do so. But this is not a taboo subject that cannot even be discussed.


As all the top UML leaders have won, is this demand for managing the party’s internal power dynamics?
Not at all. This demand is not for internal power dynamics or to create pressure. This issue should not have been dragged into controversy. The role played by the current President during the tough years of transition has been praised by all. So we do not want to drag the position and the person into controversy. But we must answer a few questions. For instance, what is the tenure of the President? Let me make a slight digression here. All the major political parties have said that they will write a constitution within a year. However, no one can say with certainty that it will be done. This commitment is not constitutionally or legally binding. The process of writing the constitution might take longer. Then the obvious question will be, for how many years should a person hold the post of President?


There is also a worry about the formation of a majority government, instead of a consensus government. Will the UML go for a majority government?
We have a clear bottom line. Until the constitution is formulated, the major actors of the 2006 Janaandolan, since the signing of the 12-point agreement, should form a consensus-based government. This is not to say that all 30 parties in the CA will be part of the government in the name of consensus. The UML is in favour of a broader consensus government of the NC, UML and Maoists. But if a party is adamant on not joining the government, then we cannot deprive the nation of an elected government for long.


So the UML is not in favour of a majority government?
Bitter past experiences show that such a government will only hamper the constitution writing process. The first government formed after the first CA election was devoid of the NC, the second was formed without the Maoists and the third one was again without the NC. This created multiple problems within the CA. No matter how much we try to separate the government and the constitution writing process, they are inter-linked. So the UML is for power sharing which is favourable to the common agenda of promulgating a constitution within the next year.


Prior to the 12-point agreement, a 6-point agreement on the initiation of the UML had been signed with the Maoists. But when we talk of the peace process, the NC and Maoists are seen as key players and the UML as peripheral. Did this have any bearing on the new hardened stance of the UML?
Our stance should be seen in a continuum. There is consistency in what we have said and done. But there is definitely a school of thought that only sees two parties in the peace process—the NC on one end of the spectrum and Maoists on the other. There have been efforts to spread this false notion in the past four years and corner the UML. But those who did so paid a heavy price for it. Nepali democracy has two extremes. Among them, the NC leads the neo-liberal part while the UML symbolises the democratic radical strand, or the communist movement. Our worry is that the NC will forget that consensus is needed to draft the constitution. There are three avenues for consensus. First, between the NC and UML. Second, with the UCPN (Maoist), which is outside the process for now and needs to be brought in. And third, the ones who have chosen to stay out of the CA need to be included in this democratic exercise.


In this context, do you see the possibility of writing a constitution within a year?
I think the government will be formed by mid-January at the latest. After that, we will focus on writing the constitution. Though the new CA is sovereign, it is not un-related to the last one. Almost 70-75 percent of the activities relating to the new
constitution have been completed. So if we can focus our attention on federalism and form of governance, it will not be difficult to produce a draft of the constitution in time. But I see a few hindrances here. First, the unnecessary time taken to form the government. This might delay the work of the CA. Second, if the UCPN (Maoist) creates unnecessary problems and third, if the parties, in the name of a changed context, backtrack on the agreements made in the last CA.


The last CA was dismantled because of a lack of agreement on form of governance and federalism. How can the people be sure that these issues will be easily sorted out?
There are a few clear verdicts given by the second CA election. People do not want single-identity federalism. The electoral performance of parties formed in the name of different ethnicities, Janajatis or so-called privileged groups like Khas and Akhanda Party clearly shows that people do not support such identity-based
structures. The second CA elections has thus already decided on the nature of federalism, i.e., based on multiple and common identities where everyone’s identity is recognised. Or a structure which does not undermine the identity of one group in the name of recognising another’s. So it will be easier to finalise the issue of federalism. If need be, a referendum can even be held on the model of federalism.


There is a worry that the new CA will be less inclusive than the previous one. How will inclusion be ensured?
As far as inclusion is concerned, there is a possibility that the representation of certain constituents will be reduced, like Dalits and women. To address this, they should be given more seats in Proportional Representation and preference in the seats that the Cabinet is assigned to nominate. Most importantly, under-represented groups should be frequently consulted with to ensure their demands are addressed in the constitution.


Finally, how will the CPN-Maoist be accommodated in the constitution writing process?
This is a bit tricky as they not only stayed outside the election process but actively tried to sabotage it. Nevertheless, we will continue holding dialogue with them and try to address their concerns. And if a legal framework can be worked out, we will do so too. However, the Interim Constitution cannot be amended to bring them in. 

Labels: Highlight, Interview